linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] USB device driver of Topcliff PCH

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <15771.1284485595@localhost>
Date:	Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:33:15 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Maurus Cuelenaere <mcuelenaere@...il.com>
Cc:	Michał Nazarewicz <m.nazarewicz@...sung.com>,
	Masayuki Ohtake <masa-korg@....okisemi.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard@...co.com>,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	linux-usb <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Fabien Chouteau <fabien.chouteau@...co.com>,
	david Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	Christoph Egger <siccegge@...d.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, MeeGo <meego-dev@...go.com>,
	"Wang, Qi" <qi.wang@...el.com>,
	"Wang, Yong Y" <yong.y.wang@...el.com>,
	Andrew <andrew.chih.howe.khor@...el.com>,
	Intel OTC <joel.clark@...el.com>,
	"Foster, Margie" <margie.foster@...el.com>,
	Arjan <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Toshiharu Okada <okada533@....okisemi.com>,
	Takahiro Shimizu <shimizu394@....okisemi.com>,
	Tomoya Morinaga <morinaga526@....okisemi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB device driver of Topcliff PCH

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:50:45 +0200, Maurus Cuelenaere said:

> Ah, well IMHO it's better not to spam LKML with subsystem-related stuff..

On the flip side, posting to LKML as well means that it's a bit harder for a
patch series to go totally down a rathole, because people outside the subsystem
then have a chance to look at the code and point out where it's going in the
wrong direction. My last code comment was regarding hardware I didn't have, and
happened because I asked myself "What would happen if that code tried to run on
my laptop?".  Similarly, we see lots of stuff posted that looks good to those
of us on 1-4 core systems, only to have somebody from SGI point out that it
will add 45 hours to boot time on one of their big boxes.  And so on.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped